Re: Pres of ACOEM responds to WSJ Article

More | Report Post

Actually Sharon, the NSC published a brief review that echos
teh findings of the ACOEM. I have never found the NSC to be
corporate shills or doubters, simply people concerned with
what could and could not be established. See it at:

https://secure.nsc.org/public/issues/mold.pdf

Also, the ACOEM acknowledges some potential health effects
from mold exposure:

"A growing body of literature associates a variety of
diagnosable respiratory illnesses (asthma, wheezing, cough,
phlegm, etc.), particularly in children, with residence in
damp or water-damaged homes (see reviews 3-5). Recent
studies have documented increased inflammatory mediators in
the nasal fluids of persons in damp buildings, but found
that mold spores themselves were not responsible for these
changes.6,7 While dampness may indicate potential mold
growth, it is also a likely indicator of dust mite
infestation and bacterial growth. The relative contribution
of each is unknown, but mold, bacteria, bacterial
endotoxins, and dust mites can all play a role in the
reported spectrum of illnesses, and can all be minimized by
control of relative humidity and water intrusion."

Why are you being so hard on them? They're simply
explaining the state of the available evidence. I wasn't
impressed with the WSJ piece, I don't think newspaper
reporters typicall--regardless of how exhaustive they say
their reserach is--are terribly accurate or qualified, and I
certainly agree that the evidence to date is lacking for
many of the cause and effect associations that have
been "hinted at" in many case reports, but that molds are
certainly, or certainly can be, allergens and sensitizers
and make people sick.

What's so terribly wrong with that?

mbobmean